Concurring with your assesment of Alvarez, I would take it a little further.
The Motion to Supress in Alvarez was allowed and the way I read it judge says-without-saying that 85-16 is unconstituional. Kind of sidestepped around it.
With 85-16 as the authority for the inquiry, the judge still deems the interaction: "The unlawful interrogation of Crespo", allowing the MTS and throws out the "fruits of the poisenous tree." IMHO, this case throws out any water 85-16 once held because anything beyond the mere documentation of name and address would be covered by this decision and not allowed.
The law is very likely unconstitutional (although remember, the SJC went on record saying they don't always follow the Constitution, see post #47 in
this thread ), but 85-16 didn't rise to any consideration in this case because the Trooper didn't stay within it's boundaries. The crux of the matter is the Trooper's testimony; he stated that he requested ID from Crespo, and that he routinely requested ID from the passengers of cars that he stopped, both because of 85-16.
The issue is that 85-16 doesn't require them to produce an identifying document, it simply requires them to give their true name and address. Trooper Brooks was stepping outside of the protection of this law by requesting Crespo's ID as opposed to requesting his name and address. He needs PC for ID, but it only needs to be dark outside to get the passenger's name and address. Make sense?
This is very similar to LTC's. In Mass., MGL 140-129C requires an LTC or FID holder to produce their license on the demand of a police officer when in public or when their property is under lawful search. In Couture and several other cases it's been held that the carrying of a firearm is a lawful activity, and is not on it's own enough PC for a stop. So if a cop in Mass. sees some thug with a HiPoint hanging out of his pants in Dorchester, he can say at any time "Show me your LTC." However, he needs PC to ask "Do you have an LTC?" One is protected by law, the other is getting into 4A/5A issues.
Based on what I read in the Alvarez case, I believe that Trooper Brooks was a good cop who made a good stop which resulted in a good bust. IMO he honestly believed he was following the law, but he missed the little nuance between name/address and ID, and his statements were a broken link in the PC chain. Because of that tiny error the whole case was thrown out. You could contrast his behavior with the actions of Trooper Cohen in
Commonwealth Vs. Brown, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 528, who was very clearly jacking passengers up at random to see what he could find, then trying to talk his way out of it after.
If 85-16 had been followed to the letter, the Alvarez case would have run a different course. Chances are it would have still been thrown out for constitutional reasons, but the issue with the case as it stands wasn't anything huge or evil IMO.
My personal take is this was probably the statute replaced by 90-25 and was never taken off the books. Just a quess.
I believe it was an old law written for carts and horses. I have no idea the reasoning behind it though, probably a panic bill drafted to combat some type crime at night.